When Observation Changes Its Purpose: A Longitudinal Case Study of Reflexive Artificial Intelligence Monitoring

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

This paper reconstructs the genealogy of a longitudinal artificial intelligence monitoring process in which repeated compatibility between newly observed developments and an expanding explanatory representation progressively became epistemically underdetermined. Rather than assuming that such compatibility demonstrated increasing explanatory adequacy, the study examines several competing possibilities: explanatory adequacy, representational elasticity, selection effects, and coupling between the observational stream and a representation constructed partly through that same stream. Using contemporaneous research records, recovered primary artefacts, interaction records, and persistent operational records, the paper traces the development of the monitoring process from distinctions concerning provenance and functional identity through the progressive expansion of the observed object beyond the isolated model to include agents, tools, environments, infrastructure, institutions, and observers. The case culminates on 22 September 2026, when the meaning of repeated compatibility itself became an object of investigation. Importantly, no decisive external anomaly had yet been identified within the monitored stream. Instead, the existing monitoring process could no longer discriminate adequately among competing explanations for its apparent explanatory success. This epistemic underdetermination led the human–AI research process to change the operational purpose of the monitoring instrument: from identifying and interpreting relevant developments to actively searching for occurrences capable of exposing insufficiencies in the existing explanatory representation. The study does not claim that compatibility objectively lost epistemic value over time, nor that the resulting monitoring regime constitutes a validated severe test. Its contribution is narrower: it documents, at unusually fine genealogical resolution, a transition from epistemic self-diagnosis to instrumental modification in an AI-mediated longitudinal research process. The case suggests that when observations participate in expanding the representation subsequently used to interpret later observations, repeated explanatory compatibility may itself become a reason to examine the relationship between observer, instrument, and representation.